Subject: [Megaco] H.248.48 vs Y.2173 (App. II) RTP/RTCP-based performance notification

From: "Schwarz Albrecht" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:20:50 +0200

Hi Geoff,

we did talk about the potential relevance of Y.mpm for RTCP HR/H.248.48
last year.
Y.mpm is now under AAP as Y.2173:
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/aap/AAPRecDetails.aspx?AAPSeqNo=1738

Please have a look at 
Appendix II - Application scenario 2: RTP/RTCP-based performance
notification
(Is Fig. II.5 from you?)

I didn't review Y.2173 so far, thus I may not comment whether this is
consistent with H.248.48.
At least I would suppose that reference point Mu would be related to
H.248/H.248.48 in case of a reporting interface to ITU-T RACF (via
Rw/Q.3303.2) or ETSI TISPAN RACS (via Ia/ES 283018).

BR, Albrecht
_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:41:33 +0100

Hi Albrecht, All,

The background to Albrecht's comment is that H.248.48, an H.248 package,
was being developed in ITU-T SG16 to allow transport of RTCP HR metrics
from a Media Gateway to its Media Gateway Controller. Work on H.248.48
is now "on hold" in SG16 pending finding a way forward for RTCP HR in
AVT, see draft-ietf-avt-rtcphr-03 and AVT minutes from Philadelphia.

I didn't contribute to Y.2173 in ITU-T SG13. The material that Albrecht
points out is in an Appendix, which is not normative.

Members of the MEGACO and AVT communities, and who work in organisations
which are members of ITU-T, may wish to review Y.2173 during its AAP
period.

BR
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Schwarz Albrecht [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 02 June 2008 12:21
To: Hunt,RG,Geoff,DMM R
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: H.248.48 vs Y.2173 (App. II) RTP/RTCP-based performance
notification

Hi Geoff,

Please have a look at
Appendix II - Application scenario 2: RTP/RTCP-based performance
notification (Is Fig. II.5 from you?)

BR, Albrecht